the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dynamic performance of a passively self-adjusting floating wind farm layout to increase the annual energy production
Mohammad Youssef Mahfouz
Ericka Lozon
Matthew Hall
Po Wen Cheng
Abstract. One of the main differences between floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs) and fixed-bottom turbines is the angular and translational motions of FOWTs. When it comes to planning a floating wind farm (FWF), the translational motions introduce an additional layer of complexity to the FWF layout. The ability of a FOWT to relocate its position represents an opportunity to mitigate wake losses within an FWF. By passively relocating downwind turbines out of the wake generated by upwind turbines, we can reduce wake-induced energy losses and enhance overall energy production. The translational movements of FOWTs are governed by the mooring system attached to it. The way a FOWT relocates its position changes if the design of the mooring system attached to it changes. Additionally, the translational motion of a FOWT attached to a given mooring system is different for different wind directions. Hence, we can tailor a mooring system design for a FOWT to passively control its motions according to the wind direction. In this work, we present a new self-adjusting FWF layout design, and assess its performance using both static and dynamic methods. The results show that relocating the FOWTs in an FWF can increase the energy production by 3 % using a steady-state wake model and 1.4 % using a dynamic wake model at a wind speed of 10 m/s. Moreover, we compare the fatigue and ultimate loads of the mooring systems of the self-adjusting FWF layout design to the mooring systems in a current state-of-the-art FWF baseline design. The comparison shows that with smaller mooring system diameters, the self-adjusting FWF design has similar fatigue damage compared to the baseline design with bigger mooring system diameters. Finally, the ultimate loads on the mooring systems of the self-adjusting FWF design are lower than those on the mooring systems of the baseline design.
- Preprint
(5031 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Mohammad Youssef Mahfouz et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2023-135', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Nov 2023
General comments:
- it is suggested to shorten the paper to focusing on the main results only as in the current form it is hard to follow and read.
- it is suggested to change the writing style from the first to the third person
- the power gain increase achieved by the authors is insignificant, so it is hard to justify the application of the proposed mooring system design to industryTechnical comments:
- line 30, the statement "... provides stiffness in surge, sway, and yaw degrees of freedom" is only valid for slack-mooring and is not valid for TLPs
- - line 110, the authors demonstrate a gain of 6.1% at 10 m/s, it would be good to know the power gain using the entire wind probability at a particular deployment location
- Figure 8 and 9 - use the power of 10 to show Frequency of the FOWT, and the chosen color-scheme does not demonstrate the variation in frequency range
- Figure 11 is mentioned first on page 6 while it appears on page 14
- Section 3.2 - the authors refer to the natural frequency of FOWT but nor clear which DOF
- Figure 8 and line 230 - the authors state that the natural frequency does not change with the wind speed and wind direction while in reality it is. It has been shown in https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-abstract/OMAE2023/86908/1167328 that the natural frequency in surge changes with wave and wind directions
- line 265 - the choice of the sea state parameters should be explained
- line 275 - the gain of 1.4% might be within the modelling error and is insignificantCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-135-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2023-135', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Nov 2023
The paper describes a methodology to design mooring systems that passively adjusts the position of floating wind turbines in a farm to avoid wakes from upwind turbines. The thinking is innovative, and the authors seek to demonstrate the energy yield gains in applying the methodology. The paper is well written and very detailed, perhaps too detaled, as it is on the long side and sometimes difficult to follow. The discussions of the observed differences in results between FAST/MoorPy, FAST.Farm/FLORIS are important and clarifying. However, descriptions of these two could be presented in a way that gives a better overview for the reader that is not familiar with these softwares.
It is also unclear why 10 m/s was chosen. Something about at which wind speeds the highest gains are expected should be mentioned. Also, it is mentioned in the conclusions that "a more realistic" case will be studied in the future, but it would be useful to know at this point what the design strategy would be if one had to design mooring systems for more than one wind speed. It would also be interesting to know the author's thoughts on how significant the observed increase in energy yield is for the total AEP.
The description of the mooring system database in sec 2.3 is very detailed, and quite confusing. I understand that the concepts of "mooring system watch circle" is descripbed in a previous paper, but it would be helpfulif the concept was described better in the current paper.
It is stated that the allowable displacement of the mooring system is 1D. For a 15MW turbine at 200 m water depth, this is 120% of the water depth. Normal offset requirements to secure cable integrity is in the range of 10-30% of the water depth. This criterion is also why one ends up with fairly stiff mooring systems. Soft systems like the one in the design here, also could have other issues that are not addressed here, such as snap loads. Please comment on this.
Continuing on soft mooring systems. It is weel established that soft mooring systems experience less fatigue than stiff systems, thus the difference in fatigue damage between the base case and the adjusted system is not necessarily related to the fact that it uses passive position adjustment. It is therefore not fair to compare the fatigue damage to a base case that was designed for a 12%WD offset.
Specific comments:
- Sec 2.4: What is "brute force optimization"?
- Sec 3.2: It is stated that the base case design is a linear mooring system. Is it not catenary? Please explain.
- Fig 8 and 9: It would be helpful if the text transfers these frequency ranges to periods.
- Sec 3.3: Are tower top deflections really that significant for platform offset, compared to (the mentioned) platform rigid body motions?
- Fig 11: Please include units in these figures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-135-RC2
Mohammad Youssef Mahfouz et al.
Video supplement
A passively self-adjusting floating wind farm layout design Mohammad Youssef Mahfouz http://doi.org/10.5446/63167
Mohammad Youssef Mahfouz et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
169 | 40 | 5 | 214 | 4 | 2 |
- HTML: 169
- PDF: 40
- XML: 5
- Total: 214
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1